I've been surfing around animation sites, blogs and other places looking for opinions on Cars winning the 2007 Best Animated Film at the Golden Globes.
It seems a lot of people think it should have gone to Happy Feet.
Happy Feet is not a 'best of' anything movie.
In most people's eyes, Happy Feet was the cutest film of 06; perhaps, as some would like to think, 'the most inventive'. To them I say- bullsh*t. :]
Now, I'm not denying the fact that Happy Feet was an adorable movie. And I know I'm incorporating my own personal opinion into part of this- but I honestly do not think Happy Feet deserves the 'best of' award for anything but for that which it has already won. (For those of you who don't know, Happy Feet won Best Original Song made for a film at the Golden Globes.)
The animation for Happy Feet was amazing. The soundtrack was beautiful. The characters, although typical, were fun. Mumble was adorable, and the 'mexican' penguins (aka Robin Williams & Robin Williams with a side of Robin Williams) were hilarious! And at the end, a good message about conservation- and being conscientious about the other little critters of our earth! And all this, incorporated into a cute story about those little fuzzballs up north- who apparently sing, and dance too! What, I daresay, could possibly be wrong with this film?
Well, I'll tell you.
First off, there's the fact that movie was made from two very good main ideas that could have worked well together, but instead of working in harmony, the two ideas split off into rough endings and a very confusing plot line that in reality- made no chronological sense. The movie started off as this sort of slow-going but still very interesting film about a cute little penguin who couldn't sing. You felt sorry for the little guy, and were excited when he'd start flapping his feet instead. It was great! And the music was even greater.
And then the story delved into this serious overtone about conservation that was barely the slightest bit apparent in the first part of the film! There's this gigantic CRACK in the middle of the story where it failed to tie together the two supporting ends of the plot, and it ruined the entire film. There is a GAPING HOLE where more rising action should have been, along with a lot more fluency. I won't even start on how off-putting the live-action portion was towards the end, because the last half of the film was such a disappointment it doesn't even deserve my time to critique it a second time.
Here's the 'my personal opinion' part:
I thought the cars of Cars were much cuter than the penguins in Happy Feet. :I And honestly, I don't even think penguins are as cute as everyone makes them out to be. :/ But that's besides the point. My big frustration is that everyone thinks Happy Feet was a better movie because Happy Feet was about cute, cuddly animals as oposed to Cars, which was about frigid metallic automobiles that actually aren't alive.
BUT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT WAS SO GENIUS ABOUT CARS!
Pixar took an object that is VERY hard to personify and made it seem as real as you and me, and they did it while keeping the integrity and mechanics of a car intact. They conveyed emotion through TIRES where as in most films it is conveyed through an entire BODY! And they did it so well, that no one even seems to notice what a feat that had to have been! No one except the animation freaks like me sat in the theatre and thought about how amazing that is, or how well they did it. And this can be applied to the movie Robots, too. The characters in Robots were built from scratch out of inanimate pieces of JUNK you find in your garage, and they were made so believably realistic that I again feel as if I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO NOTICED! XD
And no, I'm not even CLOSE to being done.
Moving on to the actual mechanics of the animation of Cars... does anyone actually know how hard it is to animate chrome, metal, shadow and shine? Just think about it for a second. Pixar is the only computer animation company who has even attempted such a project, and they kicked ass. The metals, the shine, the reflections, they were all perfect! The metals and different paint textures on the cars looked more realistic than the fur on the penguins of Happy Feet; there is absolutely no comparison.
As for inventive, I think I've already covered the fact that an entire movie about cars far outweighs a movie about singing penguins, but to further my point- I will bring up the fact that the irony of putting penguins to song over the reality of their wretched squaking does not make the idea more imaginative than a film about talking cars. Because any film involving the personification of an inanimate object will almost always be more imaginative than a film about animals. Because animals are the easiest thing to animate, and the easiest thing to sell to kids. Pixar deserves the win for this one because they went out and, again, did the never-seen-before. And like I said earlier, they kicked ass.
I'm also sick of hearing "Well Cars just had such typical and cliche characters!" This might be a liable argument if the characters of Happy Feet weren't even MORE typical! Aside from that, the characters of Cars are actually based on real people the Pixar crew met along their trip on Route 66. I think the character most picked on is Mater, and although he is the pretty typical 'loony best friend'- again, he's based on a real person; and how is Ramone of Happy Feet any less the typical comic relief? For Christ sakes, he is voiced by Robin Williams!
Moving onto the soundtracks, I'm just going to leave it as both were wonderful- athough I definately enjoyed Cars' better. :] But that is my own opinion and doesn't matter in this argument.
As far as the story and messages go? Okay, again I have to ask... am I the ONLY ONE who noticed the similarity of Happy Feet to Robots? Mumble and Rodney are practically the same character, and the plot of the film is exactly the same. (Only Robots actually tied it together.)
1. Main character grows up as an outcast. (Mumble- can't sing, Rodney- considered junk.)
2. Is the only one who really cares enough about some major problem going on in society, and becomes the sort-of self-proclaimed hero. (Mumble- must stop aliens from stealing the fish, Rodney- must stop Ratchet from killing 'outmodes' and taking 'parts' off the market.)
3. MEETS UP WITH ROBIN WILLIAMS AS FUTURE BEST FRIEND/ SIDEKICK. XD
4. [insert adventure here]
5. Saves the day.
6. GETS TYPICAL PRETTY GIRL CHARACTER.
7. WINZ @ LYFE.
Don't get me wrong, I love both ideas, but come on. How is the plot/ story of Happy Feet any more imaginative than that of Cars? Please, someone enlighten me. We already got the 'outcast hero' story last year, and now it's back. ONLY PEOPLE LIKE IT NOW, BECAUSE IT INVOLVES A CUTE FUZZY PENGUIN! And I know this is inevitable, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating. :]
Anyway. The basic messages of Happy Feet:
1. Losers can win too.
2. It's what's inside that counts.
3. Save the animals, and don't steal their fish.
4. Humans are idiots and also jackasses.
Basic messages of Cars:
1. Life is about the journey, not the win.
2. It's what's inside that counts. (Rusty cars can be koolz too! DX)
3. Friends > Fame.
4. Don't forget the 'little people/ places'.
5. Lightning McQueen = hot. :I
So. Seeing as we heard 1 & 2 of Happy Feet last year, and 3 in just about every god damn animal movie, I do believe the main points of Cars outweigh those of Happy Feet. :I I'm not saying the main points of Cars are completely original messages/ themes, but they are the less used of the group- and the way they were depicted in Cars is pretty original.
Last but not least, as far as leading characters go? Mumble is the typical romantic hero saving the day, where as Lightning McQueen is a self-centered jerk half the movie. It was refreshing to see the jerkier main character for once. It's what makes Invader Zim so great, and the Dreamworks movie Antz. The typical hero characters are great and fun, but it makes a story stronger when the 'hero' doesn't start out that heroic. :] In my opinion anyway. You romantics can think what you want.
Anyway. I'm done. I just had to rant because people are trying to discredit the current best animation company and... it's pretty much crap. :/ Cuz Pixar kicks everyone's butt. Don't get me wrong, I'll always be rootin' for the little guy- but only when they actually deserve it.
And I'm sorry, but Happy Feet didn't, and that's why Cars won. :}
PS- just one example of John Lasseter [head of Pixar] winning @ lyfe:
It seems a lot of people think it should have gone to Happy Feet.
Happy Feet is not a 'best of' anything movie.
In most people's eyes, Happy Feet was the cutest film of 06; perhaps, as some would like to think, 'the most inventive'. To them I say- bullsh*t. :]
Now, I'm not denying the fact that Happy Feet was an adorable movie. And I know I'm incorporating my own personal opinion into part of this- but I honestly do not think Happy Feet deserves the 'best of' award for anything but for that which it has already won. (For those of you who don't know, Happy Feet won Best Original Song made for a film at the Golden Globes.)
The animation for Happy Feet was amazing. The soundtrack was beautiful. The characters, although typical, were fun. Mumble was adorable, and the 'mexican' penguins (aka Robin Williams & Robin Williams with a side of Robin Williams) were hilarious! And at the end, a good message about conservation- and being conscientious about the other little critters of our earth! And all this, incorporated into a cute story about those little fuzzballs up north- who apparently sing, and dance too! What, I daresay, could possibly be wrong with this film?
Well, I'll tell you.
First off, there's the fact that movie was made from two very good main ideas that could have worked well together, but instead of working in harmony, the two ideas split off into rough endings and a very confusing plot line that in reality- made no chronological sense. The movie started off as this sort of slow-going but still very interesting film about a cute little penguin who couldn't sing. You felt sorry for the little guy, and were excited when he'd start flapping his feet instead. It was great! And the music was even greater.
And then the story delved into this serious overtone about conservation that was barely the slightest bit apparent in the first part of the film! There's this gigantic CRACK in the middle of the story where it failed to tie together the two supporting ends of the plot, and it ruined the entire film. There is a GAPING HOLE where more rising action should have been, along with a lot more fluency. I won't even start on how off-putting the live-action portion was towards the end, because the last half of the film was such a disappointment it doesn't even deserve my time to critique it a second time.
Here's the 'my personal opinion' part:
I thought the cars of Cars were much cuter than the penguins in Happy Feet. :I And honestly, I don't even think penguins are as cute as everyone makes them out to be. :/ But that's besides the point. My big frustration is that everyone thinks Happy Feet was a better movie because Happy Feet was about cute, cuddly animals as oposed to Cars, which was about frigid metallic automobiles that actually aren't alive.
BUT THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT WAS SO GENIUS ABOUT CARS!
Pixar took an object that is VERY hard to personify and made it seem as real as you and me, and they did it while keeping the integrity and mechanics of a car intact. They conveyed emotion through TIRES where as in most films it is conveyed through an entire BODY! And they did it so well, that no one even seems to notice what a feat that had to have been! No one except the animation freaks like me sat in the theatre and thought about how amazing that is, or how well they did it. And this can be applied to the movie Robots, too. The characters in Robots were built from scratch out of inanimate pieces of JUNK you find in your garage, and they were made so believably realistic that I again feel as if I AM THE ONLY ONE WHO NOTICED! XD
And no, I'm not even CLOSE to being done.
Moving on to the actual mechanics of the animation of Cars... does anyone actually know how hard it is to animate chrome, metal, shadow and shine? Just think about it for a second. Pixar is the only computer animation company who has even attempted such a project, and they kicked ass. The metals, the shine, the reflections, they were all perfect! The metals and different paint textures on the cars looked more realistic than the fur on the penguins of Happy Feet; there is absolutely no comparison.
As for inventive, I think I've already covered the fact that an entire movie about cars far outweighs a movie about singing penguins, but to further my point- I will bring up the fact that the irony of putting penguins to song over the reality of their wretched squaking does not make the idea more imaginative than a film about talking cars. Because any film involving the personification of an inanimate object will almost always be more imaginative than a film about animals. Because animals are the easiest thing to animate, and the easiest thing to sell to kids. Pixar deserves the win for this one because they went out and, again, did the never-seen-before. And like I said earlier, they kicked ass.
I'm also sick of hearing "Well Cars just had such typical and cliche characters!" This might be a liable argument if the characters of Happy Feet weren't even MORE typical! Aside from that, the characters of Cars are actually based on real people the Pixar crew met along their trip on Route 66. I think the character most picked on is Mater, and although he is the pretty typical 'loony best friend'- again, he's based on a real person; and how is Ramone of Happy Feet any less the typical comic relief? For Christ sakes, he is voiced by Robin Williams!
Moving onto the soundtracks, I'm just going to leave it as both were wonderful- athough I definately enjoyed Cars' better. :] But that is my own opinion and doesn't matter in this argument.
As far as the story and messages go? Okay, again I have to ask... am I the ONLY ONE who noticed the similarity of Happy Feet to Robots? Mumble and Rodney are practically the same character, and the plot of the film is exactly the same. (Only Robots actually tied it together.)
1. Main character grows up as an outcast. (Mumble- can't sing, Rodney- considered junk.)
2. Is the only one who really cares enough about some major problem going on in society, and becomes the sort-of self-proclaimed hero. (Mumble- must stop aliens from stealing the fish, Rodney- must stop Ratchet from killing 'outmodes' and taking 'parts' off the market.)
3. MEETS UP WITH ROBIN WILLIAMS AS FUTURE BEST FRIEND/ SIDEKICK. XD
4. [insert adventure here]
5. Saves the day.
6. GETS TYPICAL PRETTY GIRL CHARACTER.
7. WINZ @ LYFE.
Don't get me wrong, I love both ideas, but come on. How is the plot/ story of Happy Feet any more imaginative than that of Cars? Please, someone enlighten me. We already got the 'outcast hero' story last year, and now it's back. ONLY PEOPLE LIKE IT NOW, BECAUSE IT INVOLVES A CUTE FUZZY PENGUIN! And I know this is inevitable, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating. :]
Anyway. The basic messages of Happy Feet:
1. Losers can win too.
2. It's what's inside that counts.
3. Save the animals, and don't steal their fish.
Basic messages of Cars:
1. Life is about the journey, not the win.
2. It's what's inside that counts. (Rusty cars can be koolz too! DX)
3. Friends > Fame.
4. Don't forget the 'little people/ places'.
So. Seeing as we heard 1 & 2 of Happy Feet last year, and 3 in just about every god damn animal movie, I do believe the main points of Cars outweigh those of Happy Feet. :I I'm not saying the main points of Cars are completely original messages/ themes, but they are the less used of the group- and the way they were depicted in Cars is pretty original.
Last but not least, as far as leading characters go? Mumble is the typical romantic hero saving the day, where as Lightning McQueen is a self-centered jerk half the movie. It was refreshing to see the jerkier main character for once. It's what makes Invader Zim so great, and the Dreamworks movie Antz. The typical hero characters are great and fun, but it makes a story stronger when the 'hero' doesn't start out that heroic. :] In my opinion anyway. You romantics can think what you want.
Anyway. I'm done. I just had to rant because people are trying to discredit the current best animation company and... it's pretty much crap. :/ Cuz Pixar kicks everyone's butt. Don't get me wrong, I'll always be rootin' for the little guy- but only when they actually deserve it.
And I'm sorry, but Happy Feet didn't, and that's why Cars won. :}
PS- just one example of John Lasseter [head of Pixar] winning @ lyfe:
mood: 
rawr
rawr6 on the tracks | kachow!
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
groggy
accomplished
energetic
jubilant